|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 15 2014 00:18 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 13:35 coverpunch wrote:On June 14 2014 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote: What blows my mind is that the second Bush started a war to prevent Iraq/Saddam (who was funded by the first Bush) from getting/distributing more/better weapons than the first Bush gave them. So Bush Jr. invades Iraq, destabilizes the hell out of it and drops off brand new weapons, equipment and billions of dollars to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting. All while lining the pockets of the VP's former company and ballooning his interests, making him millions of dollars personally off of the Iraq war. Also his former company is responsible for the deaths of dozens of soldiers due to shitty work and asshole deals.
But bring up Iraq and the real travesty is what Obama has/hasn't done... Like seriously get a grip on reality.... It's embarrassing...
He's screwed up plenty but the schizophrenic outrage is way past ridiculous... This is Obama's tar baby now. Bush doesn't get a say in how the US plays this out because he's not president any more. For the moment, blaming Bush is not helpful to the more important questions of whether the US can beat back ISIS and restabilize the Iraqi government, and the even more important question of whether it's even worth the trouble. I'd also point out that Syria is fighting the same group, despite the fact that the US did not invade them. The way that war has gone is hardly a preferable model. Quick question: Why do we care about muslims killing the muslims that we were killing 10 years ago? Neither of them are our friends now. The only friends we have in the area are Saudi Arabia and Israel, and if the extremists (gasp) take back over all that our allies will see is a regional return to the status quo. So the worst thing that is going to happen is that everything in the middle east returns to business as usual: A bunch of islamic extremists threatening to destroy Israel while covering their nuts with both hands so Israel doesn't kick them in the dick. Now, throw all that aside and pretend we actually have a reason to want to stop these extremists: How the hell are you going to propose we do that? We already tried direct confrontation in the first and second Iraq war and, as it turns out, killing extremists on their own soil (at this point they're known as freedom fighters) only tends to breed a new, stronger generation of extremists with more extensive military experience. Also that and spending the lives of their civilians, our soldiers, and our tax dollars for literally NO GAIN (unless you call further destabilizing the region gain). Without a permanent or longterm (20-50+ years) occupation, we're not going to do anything useful there because we have already shot ourselves in the foot and given so much ammunition to our enemies. For the so called goal of stability we have three options: -Occupy long enough to get rid of generational hatred -Kill them down to the last woman and child -Let the region stabilize itself But please, do feel free to share your knowledge on why fighting a bunch of freedom fighters on their own soil for absolutely no benefit to us is an intelligent and necessary undertaking for our country. The problem with doing nothing is your giving a terrorist organization who split from Al-Qaeda because they were to soft the power of a nation. Now to some of us that is a bad thing but if you wanne sit back and see what happens after im all for it. Just don't complain when a lot of Americans get killed again.
|
Here's any excellent bit from the NYRoB on why tying tenure to performance is a recipe for further disaster in K-12 education.
Last week, Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu in Los Angeles ruled that five California statutes protecting the job security of schoolteachers were unconstitutional. Likening his brief, sixteen-page ruling to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing racial segregation in public schools, Judge Treu invalidated laws protecting teacher tenure and seniority. He said that the effect of these laws was to deny high-quality education to minority children by making it difficult to fire “grossly ineffective” teachers.
The plaintiffs in the case, Vergara v. California, have powerful backers and Judge Treu’s decision in their favor could have far-reaching implications. The case was filed by Students Matter, an advocacy group created by a Silicon Valley fiber-optics multi-millionaire named David Welch, and the decision has brought loud cheers from Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, as well as from various conservative groups, hedge-funders, and other advocates of tying teachers’ jobs to student test scores. Welch and his allies have said they plan to challenge tenure in other states. But was the judge right?
The case itself, which was brought on behalf of nine minority plaintiffs, was weak. No evidence was presented that any of the plaintiffs had teachers who were “grossly ineffective.” None of the teachers in question had negative evaluations. One student referred by name to a “bad teacher” who had in fact been named Pasadena’s teacher of the year. Two of the nine students were enrolled in charter schools, where teachers have neither tenure nor seniority. The Vergara sisters—after whom the case is named—attend a “pilot” school in Los Angeles where teachers may be dismissed for ineffectiveness.
The theory behind the case is that differences in test scores can be largely attributed to the quality of the teacher. Students who have “great teachers” will get high test scores year after year, which means they are more likely to go to college and earn a higher lifetime income. Even one such teacher, so goes the theory, can have this remarkable effect on students. On the other hand, said one of the expert witnesses cited by the judge, one bad teacher can cause students to lose an entire year of learning.
In fact, however, researchers overwhelmingly agree that family income and family education are the largest determinants of academic performance. Only a few months ago, the American Statistical Association said that teachers account for only between 1 percent and 14 percent of the variation among students in test scores. “The majority of opportunities for quality improvement,” said ASA, “are found in the system-level conditions”—that is, variables such as resources, class size, school leadership, the quality of the curriculum, and other factors that are mostly beyond the control of a single teacher.
Making Schools Poor
|
On June 14 2014 13:35 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote: What blows my mind is that the second Bush started a war to prevent Iraq/Saddam (who was funded by the first Bush) from getting/distributing more/better weapons than the first Bush gave them. So Bush Jr. invades Iraq, destabilizes the hell out of it and drops off brand new weapons, equipment and billions of dollars to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting. All while lining the pockets of the VP's former company and ballooning his interests, making him millions of dollars personally off of the Iraq war. Also his former company is responsible for the deaths of dozens of soldiers due to shitty work and asshole deals.
But bring up Iraq and the real travesty is what Obama has/hasn't done... Like seriously get a grip on reality.... It's embarrassing...
He's screwed up plenty but the schizophrenic outrage is way past ridiculous... This is Obama's tar baby now. Bush doesn't get a say in how the US plays this out because he's not president any more. For the moment, blaming Bush is not helpful to the more important questions of whether the US can beat back ISIS and restabilize the Iraqi government, and the even more important question of whether it's even worth the trouble. I'd also point out that Syria is fighting the same group, despite the fact that the US did not invade them. The way that war has gone is hardly a preferable model.
To say this is Obama's problem is silly. In fact, that line of thinking is why politics is screwed up in America, it is shameful. We are all in this together, and this is the world's problem, created in parts by our good friend, GW and Imperialism dating back hundreds of years.
Republicans want military action now in Iraq to protect oil interests. Dollar bills are involved. Hopefully we are smart enough to value our lives over our pockets. Iraq doesn't want democracy and the only reason it lasted so long is because US troops in the country fought to defend their democracy.
People self determine their government, and with their military fleeing, Iraqis obviously aren't deeply committed to democracy; they aren't willing to die for it. And that is the problem, the misguided attempt to install democracy in a country that doesn't want it and isn't willing to fight to defend it, means it will fall apart.
And you know when people are ready for democracy because they will be willing to spill their blood against an oppressive government fighting for it (like in the American Revolution!). That is when the US should step in. But there was no rebellion in Iraq. And historically, dictatorships do a great job of holding countries together, while democracies highlight differences between people as voting blocs develop, and can rip them apart. Iraq can be a single dictatorship, but it is three different democracies.
I wrote papers about how Iraq was going to fall apart in high school 10 years when we first invaded. Very sad for the Iraqi people, but not at all surprising.
|
Canada11363 Posts
edit Oh geez. I guess I didn't hit refresh from yesterday. This comment will seem really out of left-field, but had to do with the polarization and two party system conversation.
I would also throw in legal gerrymandering as another cause for growing polarization in the US. If you can't clean sweep the bums out of office (like we did with the Mulroney-Campbell Conservatives or the Fudget-Budget NDP), then I think frustration will grow with the opposing party which you can never properly punish. And frustration with any main politician in general, because not much changes because the same guys keep getting voted in. Furthermore, without a true contest from other side of the spectrum because voter groups have been divided up, your greatest threat is ideological purity rather than broad consensus.
|
On June 15 2014 00:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 00:18 Jormundr wrote:On June 14 2014 13:35 coverpunch wrote:On June 14 2014 13:14 GreenHorizons wrote: What blows my mind is that the second Bush started a war to prevent Iraq/Saddam (who was funded by the first Bush) from getting/distributing more/better weapons than the first Bush gave them. So Bush Jr. invades Iraq, destabilizes the hell out of it and drops off brand new weapons, equipment and billions of dollars to the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting. All while lining the pockets of the VP's former company and ballooning his interests, making him millions of dollars personally off of the Iraq war. Also his former company is responsible for the deaths of dozens of soldiers due to shitty work and asshole deals.
But bring up Iraq and the real travesty is what Obama has/hasn't done... Like seriously get a grip on reality.... It's embarrassing...
He's screwed up plenty but the schizophrenic outrage is way past ridiculous... This is Obama's tar baby now. Bush doesn't get a say in how the US plays this out because he's not president any more. For the moment, blaming Bush is not helpful to the more important questions of whether the US can beat back ISIS and restabilize the Iraqi government, and the even more important question of whether it's even worth the trouble. I'd also point out that Syria is fighting the same group, despite the fact that the US did not invade them. The way that war has gone is hardly a preferable model. Quick question: Why do we care about muslims killing the muslims that we were killing 10 years ago? Neither of them are our friends now. The only friends we have in the area are Saudi Arabia and Israel, and if the extremists (gasp) take back over all that our allies will see is a regional return to the status quo. So the worst thing that is going to happen is that everything in the middle east returns to business as usual: A bunch of islamic extremists threatening to destroy Israel while covering their nuts with both hands so Israel doesn't kick them in the dick. Now, throw all that aside and pretend we actually have a reason to want to stop these extremists: How the hell are you going to propose we do that? We already tried direct confrontation in the first and second Iraq war and, as it turns out, killing extremists on their own soil (at this point they're known as freedom fighters) only tends to breed a new, stronger generation of extremists with more extensive military experience. Also that and spending the lives of their civilians, our soldiers, and our tax dollars for literally NO GAIN (unless you call further destabilizing the region gain). Without a permanent or longterm (20-50+ years) occupation, we're not going to do anything useful there because we have already shot ourselves in the foot and given so much ammunition to our enemies. For the so called goal of stability we have three options: -Occupy long enough to get rid of generational hatred -Kill them down to the last woman and child -Let the region stabilize itself But please, do feel free to share your knowledge on why fighting a bunch of freedom fighters on their own soil for absolutely no benefit to us is an intelligent and necessary undertaking for our country. The problem with doing nothing is your giving a terrorist organization who split from Al-Qaeda because they were to soft the power of a nation. Now to some of us that is a bad thing but if you wanne sit back and see what happens after im all for it. Just don't complain when a lot of Americans get killed again. I wouldn't dream of it. We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. We gave them plenty of reasons to want us dead in the perfect environment to breed retaliatory terrorism. Then we did it again in 2003, only on a much larger scale. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.
|
Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak:
![[image loading]](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/140605130717-jobs-report-data-060614-620xa.png) Source
It's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender:
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpkVMBTCEAA86q5.png) Source
Largely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT:
How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts
|
On June 15 2014 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak: SourceIt's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender: SourceLargely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT: How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts Isn't the problem tho that a lot of the "recovered" jobs are of a lower education level then those that were lost?
|
On June 15 2014 01:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak: SourceIt's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender: SourceLargely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT: How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts Isn't the problem tho that a lot of the "recovered" jobs are of a lower education level then those that were lost?
Yes if you compared the jobs at each time it's undeniable that the jobs are shittier. They expect you to work harder and be more productive than 10 years ago for less money.
One of several reasons the DOW is at record highs with corporate profits yet wages are stagnant, and people need 2-3 jobs just to stay afloat.
Rising tide my ass.
|
We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war.
when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states.
the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states?
the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed?
saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted.
osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference?
US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed.
By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years.
nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land."
or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism.
|
On June 15 2014 01:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 01:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Didn't notice it mentioned yet, but employment (finally) came back to pre-recession peak: SourceIt's also been noted that the recession / recovery have played out differently by gender: SourceLargely that's due to the mix of jobs that have come back. Healthcare continued to add jobs while construction atypically didn't. You can see that in a fantastic set of graphs put together by the NYT: How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts Isn't the problem tho that a lot of the "recovered" jobs are of a lower education level then those that were lost? I'm not sure about that. Manufacturing and construction have done really poorly and those industries aren't heavy on high education jobs.
|
On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. Show nested quote +By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.
|
On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value.
I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not)
Actually you have been echoing radical propaganda by claiming that 9/11 was a result of American politics in the middle-east.
|
On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value. I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not) I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm. The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.
While I agree that Islam is being used as the excuse for imperial expansion, I do not believe that our significant intervention and continued presence in the region is unrelated to our being targeted by extremists in the region.
|
On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value. I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not) I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm. The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability.
There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations.
The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear.
And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure, as they have for centuries.
|
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value. I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not) I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm. The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability. There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations. The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear. And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure. I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill.
|
On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value. I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not) I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm. The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability. There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations. The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear. And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure. I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill. You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history.
The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy?
I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.
|
On June 15 2014 06:44 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value. I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not) I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm. The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability. There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations. The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear. And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure. I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill. You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history. The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy? I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars.
I mean at the end of the day the only reason ISIS is making any gains at all is because Malaki has made zero effort to reach out to the Sunni's in Iraq. This basically is on Malaki to fix the rift between the sides since he is a major cause of it and if we just go in and take down the militants for him then all we are doing is allowing him to continue to widen the rift.
|
On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value. I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not) I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm. The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability. There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations. The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear. And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure, as they have for centuries.
I don't think you can really disconnect the two. Would there be ethnic tensions without the west? Probably, but it didn't help that we drew shitty borders. How much fighting would have occurred if those borders were drawn with ethnic groups, you can't say.
|
On June 15 2014 07:08 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 06:44 coverpunch wrote:On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value. I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not) I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm. The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability. There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations. The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear. And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure. I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill. You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history. The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy? I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars. I mean at the end of the day the only reason ISIS is making any gains at all is because Malaki has made zero effort to reach out to the Sunni's in Iraq. This basically is on Malaki to fix the rift between the sides since he is a major cause of it and if we just go in and take down the militants for him then all we are doing is allowing him to continue to widen the rift. Interesting. How do you know?
|
On June 15 2014 07:08 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2014 06:44 coverpunch wrote:On June 15 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 03:39 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 03:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 15 2014 03:10 Jormundr wrote:On June 15 2014 02:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:We created 9/11 ourselves by our proxy wars through Israel and our terrorism of Iraqi civilians in the first gulf war. when men like ayman al-zawahiri and osama bin laden were young men getting radicalized israel's main ally was france, not the united states. the persian gulf war war happened in the 1960s when sayyid qutb wrote the book that is the modern ideological underpinning of sunni jihadism? when he was being tortured in an egyptian jail when egypt was an ally of the soviet union and hostile to the united states? the persian gulf war happened hundreds of years ago when the islamic doctrines of supremacism and cultural xenophobia that qutb relied on were developed? saudi arabia is iraq? osama was pissed saudi arabia asked the united states and not him to fight saddam. osama felt quite jilted. osama bin laden was in a legitimate position to speak for muslims and wage jihad for them because dirty infidels were trodding the holy sand of saudi arabia? was there an election? a muslim religious conference? US is responsible for 9/11 because non-american muslims are children with no ambitions or motivations of their own. they just sit around staring at the sky presumably until americans show up and mess with them, then all of a sudden they for some odd reason don't want to just defend "their" land from dirty infidels, they want to restore the islamic caliphate and dominate the planet as they have loopily said several times. seems kind of like an overreaction. almost as if they have motivations that spring from somewhere other than noam chomsky's latest screed. By our own blood-for-blood creed, we have single-handedly inspired every anti-west terrorist attack for the next 50 years. nonsense. anti-west terrorist attacks are inspired, have been inspired, and will be inspired by an imperialist ideology that demands its version of islam be the exclusive belief in islamic-majority countries (and you die if you don't follow), and that non-islamic cultures show deference to it in various ways (like muslims can proselytize in their countries but they can't do it in muslim countries, muslims are allowed to immigrate to their countries but they can't dirty sacred "muslim land" with their infidel beliefs, muslim cultural mores must be respected in their countries but anything "un-islamic" being introduced into their culture is unacceptable and a justification for violence, the list goes on and on really). and you can just go ahead and die if you sully their perfect culture with your dirty sexuality or your un-islamic democracy with separation of church and state. and heaven forbid you and your barely-human filthy non-muslim feet dare touch "muslim land." or you could believe the fantasy that they hate us because we were mean to them. as if marxist theories about political violence being the responsibility of the boogeyman oppressor can be transferred wholesale onto a non-western culture. talk about orientalism. Meh, you haven't really convinced my that my action-reaction approach is wrong by quoting the propaganda lines of muslim politicians and leaders. You really shouldn't take those things at face value. I think you have not understood his post. What he is saying is literally the opposite of what muslim politicians and leaders have been saying. (that these exact leaders are just using the anti-western sentiments as an excuse to spread an imperialistic version of Islam over the middle east, no matter if the West is intervening or not) I couldn't tell what was going on in the first half of the post because I couldn't really tell what was irony/sarcasm. The second part is what I'm disagreeing with. Unless I've lost my basic reading comprehension, he basically said they're haters hating because they're hateful and that's the end of discussion. The thing that makes me disagree with this is that many of the things he claimed about their 'imperialist ideology' have direct parallels with the elevated rhetoric/propaganda of the tea party, who are not haters hating because they're hateful, but smart politicians taking advantage of the lowest levels of argumentation and the basest of feelings to instill pride and a feeling of unity in their followers for the purposes of control and stability. There is no reason to deny that a certain portion of foreign terrorism (especially the acts of terrorism committed by people that grew up in the West and have gone nuts) is fueled by Western politics, but it's nonsense to claim that the majority of problems in the middle-east stems from Western 'occupation'. That's exactly what people like bin Laden have used as an excuse for their terrorist operations. The biggest problem the middle-east faces is that it's caught up in societies that are 200 years behind everybody else. Apostasy is still punishable by death in many countries, women have no rights, children have no education, dictators are ruling like kings and many people support Shariah law. That this is not going to end very well is pretty clear. And we can do absolutely nothing about it. Maybe it wouldn't look as chaotic as it does without the Iraq war, but the parties involved would have found another reason to bash each other's heads in for sure. I never claimed that the middle eastern problems stem from our politics. I agree that their main problem is they're years behind. I'm just saying our intervention in the middle east (Mainly the creation of Israel and its maintenance as an elite military power in the region, the two Iraq Wars, our own personal military bases, and our often exploitative business practices) are (in light of the obvious problems in the region) the metaphorical equivalent of covering your dick in honey and fucking an anthill. You're only harping on things that can't be changed. We can't undo history. The question is how do you want President Obama to play this out going forward? What do you think he will decide to do? And which decisions and outcomes would you be happy with and which decisions and outcomes would you say he's messing up and continuing the ugly legacy? I suppose the answer can be implied that you want a full withdrawal and the US to do nothing about these wars. I mean at the end of the day the only reason ISIS is making any gains at all is because Malaki has made zero effort to reach out to the Sunni's in Iraq. This basically is on Malaki to fix the rift between the sides since he is a major cause of it and if we just go in and take down the militants for him then all we are doing is allowing him to continue to widen the rift. Oo they have been massacring themselves in Iraq since the moment Saddam fell. You can't just 'reach out' when one side is determined to remove the other from existence.
|
|
|
|